Unconditional Folly

Unconditional Surrender, the declaration that the enemy powers had to lay down arms without condition or concession, was President Roosevelt's idea which he announced to the world at the end of the Casablanca Conference, on an entirely unilateral basis. For the sake of Allied unity, it was immediately endorsed by Winston Churchill, though he later admitted to being dumfounded by the announcement, and worried by its likely effect on the future course of the war.

Dwight D Eisenhower, also present at the conference, shared Churchill's misgivings, believing that such an uncompromising line would only serve to prolong the war, costing more Allied lives than was necessary. In fact, there would appear to have been few, if any, who welcomed Roosevelt's declaration of intent

It also dismayed people like Admiral Canaris and others in the German resistance, but-not surprisingly-delighted Josef Goebbels, who said "I should never have been able to think up so rousing a slogan. If our enemy tells us, we won't deal with you, our only aim is to destroy you, how can any German, whether he likes it or not, do anything but fight on with all his strength." It is surely no coincidence that the Propaganda Minister's infamous Total War Speech came a few weeks of the Casablanca edict-Now, people rise up and let the storm break loose.

Perhaps the absolutely worst thing about unconditional surrender is that it came just as the German army had suffered one of the worst defeats in its history at Stalingrad, considerably weakening the prospects for the Reich, and making it more likely that the senior command would listen to the blandishments of Canaris and others. But now they had to fight on, Nazi and anti-Nazi alike.

In the summer of 1943, with Italy on the point of abandoning the Axis, Churchill and Eisenhower's attempts to negotiate a compromise peace with Pietro Badoglio were ruined after Roosevelt held fast to unconditional surrender. In the delays that followed the Germans were able to pour troops into Italy, ensuring that Allied progress up the peninsula would be slow and painful.

Similarly, as D Day approached in 1944, George Marshall and the US joint chiefs urged Roosevelt to moderate his policy, but met with outright refusal. Even after German resistance in Normandy proved far tougher than expected Roosevelt refused to budge, despite a further appeal from Eisenhower. He defended his policy on a visit to Hawaii-when he confirmed it also applied to Japan-, drawing an example from American history, insisting that this is how U. S. Grant had dealt Robert E Lee at Appomattox in April 1865. But, of course, it was not, as those of you familiar with the history of the American Civil War will be only too well aware. Grant offered Lee and the defeated southern army terms, and very generous terms at that.

In the end the policy, though not completely discarded, was moderated after Roosevelt's death. While the Japanese surrender was declared to be 'unconditional', they were permitted to keep their Emperor. If they had not, while one cannot be absolutely certain, it is possible that America's nuclear bluff would have been called, making an invasion of the Home Islands necessary. The cost in lives of such an endeavour can only be imagined.

Time for another Tea Party!

I have a keen interest in American constitutional history. I’ve read some of The Federalist Papers, the more important documents among them, and know how fascinating they are, how the Founding Fathers grappled with some of the great issues of politics and governance that faced the new nation. The arguments forwarded by James Madison in favour of checks and balances are of enduring relevance.

The essential point is that Americans, supposedly having overthrown one ‘tyrant’ in the form of George III, were reaching for a way of ensuring that a republican tyranny did not rise in its place; that a new monarchy, in other words, did not arise from the office of President. But, my, my, how Madison, Jefferson and Franklin would be shocked to see how that office has both expanded…and degenerated.

In 1776 George III’s power, the power held by the English monarchy as an institution, was in steady decline, devolving by degrees to Parliament and the office of Prime Minister, a process that would continue throughout the nineteenth century. Now, by way of contrast, look at America, look how the country’s political institutions have evolved since the Revolution. There the Constitution has in theory and practice enshrined monarchical power, enshrined, if you like, the monarchy of 1776. Now, I ask, is there any greater paradox or irony than that?

Let me deal with some specifics. The Presidency has become monstrous, a reflection both of the times and the office. In the nineteenth century the American Whig Party was formed to challenge what they perceived as the growing autocracy of ‘King’ Andrew Jackson, recalling the struggles of the seventeenth century English Whigs against the absolutism of the Stuarts. My, how far things have gone since then. A King, a mere King? Why, that’s far too modest. Super Obama has gone that one step further, at least he has according to Newsweek, which described him as “…above the country, above the world; he’s sort of God.”

Alas, I shall ever be the prophet unarmed, a Cassandra in the wilderness but I love America, a kind of second home for me, so I will say it: Super Obama is going to let you down and let you down badly; he is not God; he is not even a King, though he has all the power of one: he is all promise and no substance. There is nothing behind the repellent personality cult that has been woven around this wooden titan. But Newsweek says he is God, and I rather suspect Obama thinks he is God as well. Look at those big divine promises: he is going to overhaul health care; he is going to create millions of jobs, he is going to cure cancer; he is going to rid the world of nuclear weapons and so on and so on and so on. The Promised Land is there before you, is it not? The problem is that it flows not with milk and honey but with empty words and windy rhetoric.

Still, the expansion of executive power is real enough, threatening to invade areas that even FDR dared not touch. I do not think you will end up any better off, and I do not think that Super Obama will ever be able to make good on his ludicrously inflated promises; but there are still genuine dangers to your liberty, dangers that the Founding Fathers would have been acutely aware of. The danger is not in Obama himself; he is just the fool who paves the path to hell with good intentions. The danger comes from behind, from the populism that pushes him forward in his divine mission, the populism uncorked by his demagoguery.

Hey, guys, it’s time for another tea party.

Frost Nixon

I went to see the Frost Nixon movie earlier this year. Have you seen it? Well, I simply can’t recommend it highly enough. It’s not as sweepingly effective as Oliver Stone’s Nixon, but, given the limitations of the structure-a screenplay based on a series of interviews between David Frost and ex-president Richard Nixon-it works terribly well. Essentially if follows a standard Hollywood format, with the ‘good guy’ reeling under the blows of the ‘baddie’, until he finally gets up and delivers a knock-out punch.

The key moment in the whole movie is set during the last of the interviews, that dealing with Watergate, when Nixon effectively says that the President has powers above and beyond the law, the leitmotiv of tyrants throughout history. Michael Sheen is good as David Frost, but not nearly as good as Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. Langella, I suppose, amplifies aspects of Nixon’s character that Anthony Hopkins showed in Stone’s move: the inner vulnerability, the sense of rejection and self-loathing, the great Achilles Heel of a man who in many ways was one of the most intelligent American presidents of the last century.